5 ms·

I am not sure if a single S3 outage pushed any big names into their own "datacenter". S3 has still the world record of reliability that you cannot challenge wit

I am not sure if a single S3 outage pushed any big names into their own "datacenter". S3 has still the world record of reliability that you cannot challenge with your inhouse solutions. You can prove it otherwise. I would love to hear a solution that has the same durability, avabiality and scalability as S3. For the downvoters, please just link here the proof if you disagree. Here are the S3 numbers: https://aws.amazon.com/s3/sla/ https://aws.amazon.com/s3/sla/

fusl 7y ago
> For the downvoters, please just link here the proof if you disagree. https://wasabi.com/ https://wasabi.com/
- snazz 7y ago
  How can they possibly guarantee eleven nines? Considering I’ve never heard of this company and they offer such crazy-sounding improvements over the big three, it feels like there should be a catch.
  - johnmaguire2013 7y ago
    For data durability? I believe some AWS offerings also have an SLA of eleven 9's of data durability.
  - ignoramous 7y ago
    11 9s isn't uncommon. AWS S3 does 11 9s (upto 16 9s with cross region replication?) for data durability, too. AFAIK, AWS published papers about their use of formal methods to ascertain bugs from other parts of the system didn't creep in to affect durability/availability guarantees: https://blog.acolyer.org/2014/11/24/use-of-formal-methods-at-amazon-web-services/ https://blog.acolyer.org/2014/11/24/use-of-formal-methods-at... This is a pretty neat and concise read on ObjectStorage in-use at BigTech, in case you're interested: https://maisonbisson.com/post/object-storage-prior-art-and-lit-review/ https://maisonbisson.com/post/object-storage-prior-art-and-l...
    - nullwasamistake 7y ago
      You have to be kidding me. 14 9's is already microseconds a year. Surely below anybody's error bar for whether a service is down or not. 16 9's and aws should easily last as long as the great pyramids without a second worth of outage. What a joke
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        This is for data loss. 11 9s is like 1 byte lost per terabyte-year or something, which isn't an unreasonable number.
      - agwa 7y ago
        The 16 9's are for durability, not availability. AWS is not saying S3 will never go down; they're saying it will rarely lose your data.
        nullwasamistake 7y ago
        This number is still total bullshit. They could lose a few kb and be above that for centuries
        jefftk 7y ago
        None of the big cloud providers have unrecoverably lost hosted data yet, despite sorting vast volumes, so this doesn't seem BS to me.
        mentat 7y ago
        AWS lost data in Australia a few years ago due to a power outage I believe.
        anbop 7y ago
        on EBS, not on S3. EBS has much lower durability guarantees
  - sascha_sl 7y ago
    11 9s of durability, barely two 9s of availability I'm sure that's okay if you do bulk processing / time-independent analysis, but don't host production assets on wasabi.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  I was asking numbers of reliability, durability and availability for a service like S3. What does wasabi has to do with that?
snicker7 7y ago
It's not so much AWS vs. in-house. But AWS (or GCP/DO/etc.) vs. multi/hybrid solutions. The latter of which would presumably have lower downtime.
- solidasparagus 7y ago
  Why would you think that self-managed has lower downtime than AWS using multiple datacenters/regions?
  - ummonk 7y ago
    Multi/hybrid means you use both self managed and AWS datacenters.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    Actually, I imagine that if you could go multi-regional then your self-managed solution may be directly competitive in terms of uptime. The idea that in-house can't be multi-regional is a bit old fashioned in 2019.
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    For several reasons, most notably: staff, build quality, standards, knowledge of building extremely reliable datacenters. Most of the people who are the most knowledgeable about datacenters also happen to be working for cloud vendors. On the top of that: software. Writing reliable software at scale is a challenge.
- didibus 7y ago
  I don't see why multi/hybrid would have lower downtime. All cloud providers as far as I know, though I know mostly of AWS, already have their services in multiple data-centers and their endpoints in multiple regions. So if you make yourself use more then one of their AZs and Region, you would be just as multi as with your own data center.
  - zambal 7y ago
    Using a single cloud provider with a multiple region setup won't protect you from some issues in their networking infrastructure, as the subject of this thread supposedly shows. Although I guess depending on how your own infrastructure is setup, even a multi cloud provider setup won't save you from a network outage like the current Google cloud one.
qes 7y ago
> For the downvoters, please just link here the proof if you disagree. > Here are the S3 numbers: https://aws.amazon.com/s3/sla/ https://aws.amazon.com/s3/sla/ 99.9% https://azure.microsoft.com/en-au/support/legal/sla/storage/v1_4/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-au/support/legal/sla/storage/... 99.99%
- StreamBright 7y ago
  Azure is a cloud solution. The thread is about how a random datacenter with a random solution is better than S3.
  - ozymandias12 7y ago
    Wow, he’s comparing the storages SLA of the two biggest cloud services in the world. Pedantic behavior should hurt.
- ti_ranger 7y ago
  >> Here are the S3 numbers: https://aws.amazon.com/s3/sla/ https://aws.amazon.com/s3/sla/ > 99.9% (single-region) There doesn't seem to be an SLA on S3-cross-region-replication configurations, but I am not aware of a multi-region S3 (read) outage, ever. > https://azure.microsoft.com/en-au/support/legal/sla/storage/.. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-au/support/legal/sla/storage/.... > 99.99% 99.99% is for "Read Access-Geo Redundant Storage (RA-GRS)" Their equivalent SLA is the same (99.9% for "Locally Redundant Storage (LRS), Zone Redundant Storage (ZRS), and Geo Redundant Storage (GRS) Accounts.").
dgoldstein0 7y ago
Cannot challenge with your own inhouse solutions, you say? Challenge Accepted... and defeated: https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/03/magic-pocket-infrastructure/ https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/03/magic-pocket-infrastr... but to be fair, storage is core to Dropbox's business... this is not true for most companies. disclaimer: I work for Dropbox, though not on Magic Pocket.

fusl 7y ago

> For the downvoters, please just link here the proof if you disagree. https://wasabi.com/ https://wasabi.com/

snazz 7y ago
How can they possibly guarantee eleven nines? Considering I’ve never heard of this company and they offer such crazy-sounding improvements over the big three, it feels like there should be a catch.
- johnmaguire2013 7y ago
  For data durability? I believe some AWS offerings also have an SLA of eleven 9's of data durability.
- ignoramous 7y ago
  11 9s isn't uncommon. AWS S3 does 11 9s (upto 16 9s with cross region replication?) for data durability, too. AFAIK, AWS published papers about their use of formal methods to ascertain bugs from other parts of the system didn't creep in to affect durability/availability guarantees: https://blog.acolyer.org/2014/11/24/use-of-formal-methods-at-amazon-web-services/ https://blog.acolyer.org/2014/11/24/use-of-formal-methods-at... This is a pretty neat and concise read on ObjectStorage in-use at BigTech, in case you're interested: https://maisonbisson.com/post/object-storage-prior-art-and-lit-review/ https://maisonbisson.com/post/object-storage-prior-art-and-l...
  - nullwasamistake 7y ago
    You have to be kidding me. 14 9's is already microseconds a year. Surely below anybody's error bar for whether a service is down or not. 16 9's and aws should easily last as long as the great pyramids without a second worth of outage. What a joke
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      This is for data loss. 11 9s is like 1 byte lost per terabyte-year or something, which isn't an unreasonable number.
    - agwa 7y ago
      The 16 9's are for durability, not availability. AWS is not saying S3 will never go down; they're saying it will rarely lose your data.
      - nullwasamistake 7y ago
        This number is still total bullshit. They could lose a few kb and be above that for centuries
        jefftk 7y ago
        None of the big cloud providers have unrecoverably lost hosted data yet, despite sorting vast volumes, so this doesn't seem BS to me.
        mentat 7y ago
        AWS lost data in Australia a few years ago due to a power outage I believe.
        anbop 7y ago
        on EBS, not on S3. EBS has much lower durability guarantees
- sascha_sl 7y ago
  11 9s of durability, barely two 9s of availability I'm sure that's okay if you do bulk processing / time-independent analysis, but don't host production assets on wasabi.
StreamBright 7y ago
I was asking numbers of reliability, durability and availability for a service like S3. What does wasabi has to do with that?

snicker7 7y ago

It's not so much AWS vs. in-house. But AWS (or GCP/DO/etc.) vs. multi/hybrid solutions. The latter of which would presumably have lower downtime.

solidasparagus 7y ago
Why would you think that self-managed has lower downtime than AWS using multiple datacenters/regions?
- ummonk 7y ago
  Multi/hybrid means you use both self managed and AWS datacenters.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  Actually, I imagine that if you could go multi-regional then your self-managed solution may be directly competitive in terms of uptime. The idea that in-house can't be multi-regional is a bit old fashioned in 2019.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  For several reasons, most notably: staff, build quality, standards, knowledge of building extremely reliable datacenters. Most of the people who are the most knowledgeable about datacenters also happen to be working for cloud vendors. On the top of that: software. Writing reliable software at scale is a challenge.
didibus 7y ago
I don't see why multi/hybrid would have lower downtime. All cloud providers as far as I know, though I know mostly of AWS, already have their services in multiple data-centers and their endpoints in multiple regions. So if you make yourself use more then one of their AZs and Region, you would be just as multi as with your own data center.
- zambal 7y ago
  Using a single cloud provider with a multiple region setup won't protect you from some issues in their networking infrastructure, as the subject of this thread supposedly shows. Although I guess depending on how your own infrastructure is setup, even a multi cloud provider setup won't save you from a network outage like the current Google cloud one.

qes 7y ago

> For the downvoters, please just link here the proof if you disagree. > Here are the S3 numbers: https://aws.amazon.com/s3/sla/ https://aws.amazon.com/s3/sla/ 99.9% https://azure.microsoft.com/en-au/support/legal/sla/storage/v1_4/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-au/support/legal/sla/storage/... 99.99%

StreamBright 7y ago
Azure is a cloud solution. The thread is about how a random datacenter with a random solution is better than S3.
- ozymandias12 7y ago
  Wow, he’s comparing the storages SLA of the two biggest cloud services in the world. Pedantic behavior should hurt.
ti_ranger 7y ago
>> Here are the S3 numbers: https://aws.amazon.com/s3/sla/ https://aws.amazon.com/s3/sla/ > 99.9% (single-region) There doesn't seem to be an SLA on S3-cross-region-replication configurations, but I am not aware of a multi-region S3 (read) outage, ever. > https://azure.microsoft.com/en-au/support/legal/sla/storage/.. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-au/support/legal/sla/storage/.... > 99.99% 99.99% is for "Read Access-Geo Redundant Storage (RA-GRS)" Their equivalent SLA is the same (99.9% for "Locally Redundant Storage (LRS), Zone Redundant Storage (ZRS), and Geo Redundant Storage (GRS) Accounts.").

dgoldstein0 7y ago

Cannot challenge with your own inhouse solutions, you say? Challenge Accepted... and defeated: https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/03/magic-pocket-infrastructure/ https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/03/magic-pocket-infrastr... but to be fair, storage is core to Dropbox's business... this is not true for most companies. disclaimer: I work for Dropbox, though not on Magic Pocket.